tune_track_length

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions it is an alias and provides no information about the operation's side effects, permissions, or any other behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies the design or what it returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information about the tool's functionality and parameters, making it far too minimal to be useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has two required parameters, no annotations, and relies entirely on an alias reference, the description is completely inadequate. It does not tie the parameters to any operation, nor does it provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The output schema exists but the description does not leverage it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines net_name and target_length_mm, but the description adds no additional meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not explain how the parameters are used, the expected format, or units.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says it is a backward-compatible alias for route_tune_length(), but does not state what the tool actually does. This relies on the reader knowing route_tune_length, making the purpose unclear. It is not a complete tautology, but it fails to provide any functional description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like route_tune_length or tune_diff_pair_length. The alias reference alone does not indicate any context or conditions for choosing this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.